Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that a senior planning officer overruled the view of another planning officer with regard to the impact of a proposed development on the complainant’s home.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mr X, says that a senior planning officer overruled the view of another planning officer regarding the impact of a proposed development on his home. Mr X says the senior planning officer was influenced by pre-planning advice which pre-determined the application and rendered the consultation stage useless.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to tackle his concerns and the senior planning officer did not visit his property.
3. Mr X acknowledges the Council refused planning permission for the proposed development but says its decision sets a precedent for a further application which would have a significant impact on his family life and finances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I examined the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council. I considered Mr X’s comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council received a planning application. Before the Council determined the application, the case officer met with Mr X. Mr X was satisfied the case officer had taken account of his concerns about the proposal’s impact on his amenity. Mr X refers to an email he received from the case officer after their meeting in which the officer said that he would recommend the proposed development was reduced in size and scale if the applicant approached the council for advice.
8. The case officer then discussed the application with a senior planning officer. The Council refused planning permission for the development. But in doing so, the case officer included an assessment of the proposal’s impact on neighbouring properties. In summary, the Council’s judgement was that the proposed development did not have an impact on neighbouring amenity that would justify refusal of the application.
9. Mr X is dissatisfied because the assessment of the development’s impact on his amenities was different from his understanding of the case officer’s view when they met at his home. Mr X says the assessment was changed by the senior planning officer who did not visit his home. Mr X says the senior planning officer was unduly influenced by pre-application advice the Council gave to the applicant.

Finding

10. We examine complaints about planning decisions to see if the Council took account of material planning considerations that apply to an application. It is not for the Ombudsman to substitute his judgement for that of the Council’s officers in the absence of fault in the decision-making process.
11. In this case, I am satisfied the case officer was aware of Mr X’s concerns and the officer’s report then set out the officer’s judgement on the application with those concerns in mind.
12. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s judgement on matters such as loss of light but the Council explained its view on the matter of light. I am satisfied there is reasoned justification for the Council’s decision. I do not therefore find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
13. It was not improper for the case officer to discuss the application with the senior planning officer and revise his view based on the advice. That was not fault.
14. There is no statutory requirement for a local planning authority to visit the homes of neighbours adjoining an application site. The requirement to visit the application site was met when the case officer did so. I do not find fault because the senior planning officer discussed the case with the case officer without visiting the site or Mr X’s home.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman